It’s not targeted at husbands. The ad is targeted at therapists. It makes no judgment on the social status or place of the patient just tries to avert some suffering of a patient in that sucky place. It’s from the 60/70’s. Plenty of devorce lawyers had a diferent pescription.

I think drugging someone so they stay in a sucky place rather than helping them out of that sucky place is absolutely a judgement call for what a woman’s role in society should be. Regardless of whether it’s a husband or therapist making that call.

Yep. Exactly. I had a friend who took a leave of absence from her long time job to see what it’d be like to live with a boyfriend in another city. It didn’t go well and they went into therapy. The boyfriend and therapist kept arguing she should go on drugs. She felt like she had a right to be depressed and upset and medicating it out was not the appropriate solution to what was clearly situational.

Yes. A class-ridden gender-divided society drives people crazy. And while, one at a time and in the short run, it might seem simpler to drug people into complacency, in the long run it’s still necessary to draw people into action to change the society. Sadly many psychiatrists still take gender-divided roles for granted.

I don’t think it’s exactly awful. There was a lot of change occurring between the 50s and 70s regarding divorce and women’s expectations. In the 50s there was a lot of stigma regarding divorce and divorced women (not so much men), and a lot of it was carried into the 60s and 70s, despite the rising divorce rate.

Women in bad marriages didn’t really have any good options. It was either endure the marriage and try to cope as best you could, or extricate yourself from the frying pan and jump in the fire. Since it was so difficult for women to make enough money to support themselves and any children they might have, the most prudent course was to marry, which became increasingly difficult.

It’s by no means a perfect solution, or even a good one, but if you’re drowning you might have to cling to driftwood in the absence of a life raft.

I’m not entirely sure how “I don’t think it’s exactly awful” fits into the rest of your description of how women were basically completely stuck and unable to move upwards or even sideways in society, and instead looked to drugs to make things easier to deal with. What about abusive marriages? They were quite common back then and women had no real way to get out.

Obviously it’s making a judgment call. The judgment call is that rather than getting herself into a situation where she can share chores with her husband, or get a job and pay someone else to do them, or just accept that maybe the kitchen doesn’t have to be mopped EVERY day, she should just take drugs so she’s not as acutely distressed about the situation.

“The judgment call is that rather than getting herself into a situation where she can share chores with her husband, or get a job and pay someone else to do them, or just accept that maybe the kitchen doesn’t have to be mopped EVERY day…”

Why must we assume the therapist is not suggesting those kinds of changes?

The ad copy says [directed to therapists] “Your reassurance and guidance may have helped some, but not enough.” … “Eventually –as she regains confidence and composure–your counsel may be all the support she needs.”

I take that to mean the therapist is meant to be making suggestions about how to change her life. Then if the patient is still experiencing irrational levels of anxiety, they resort to medication. This could be a Gloria Steinem for all we know, part of a liberated and egalitarian family, but experiencing an irrational amount of anxiety just to get through the chores that she has fairly negotiated with her partner. Her “day to day problems.” Some people have high anxiety without having good reasons for it, without being oppressed. Is it possible that some woman in 1967 could have escaped from the stifling gender roles society tried to keep her in, and still experienced anxiety? And could have benefited from medication along with “guidance” and “counsel” and talk therapy?

Am I part of the sexism-denialism brigade, or are you a denialist or minimizer of mental illness?

This could be a Gloria Steinem for all we know, part of a liberated and egalitarian family, but experiencing an irrational amount of anxiety just to get through the chores that she has fairly negotiated with her partner.

But it probably isn’t. You’ve chosen the most extreme example and tried to apply it to a general situation.

Am I part of the sexism-denialism brigade, or are you a denialist or minimizer of mental illness?

Given the all-pervasive nature of sexism in our world and how much worse it was when this ad was created, please explain how those are comparable. And while you’re at it, please explain why you’ve decided that the way to help the mentally ill is to pretend that women’s lives weren’t ruined by centuries of institutionalized sexism.

I know it was an extreme example, but it seems like in focusing on the general sexism of that time, everyone here in the comments is ignoring the possibility that some people currently have or in 1967 had anxiety that could have been legitimately treated by medication.

“please explain why you’ve decided that the way to help the mentally ill is to pretend that women’s lives weren’t ruined by centuries of institutionalized sexism.”

I don’t see how anything I wrote on this thread could fairly be summarized in that way. I was never defending the damn ad as blameless. I acknowledged all along that it plays on gender stereotypes. I’ve just been trying to emphasize that not all mental illness can be explained away by sexism.

Hell, if we can have drapetomania for this curious and incomprehensible obsession certain slaves seem to have for running away, I’m sure husbands who come home to find that their housewives have been out all day instead of staying home and scrubbing the house down from attic to cellar would ask a doctor for a prescription to deal with this damn old oikophobia so she’ll get back in there and get busy.

I’m trying to bite my tongue. This fits into 70s gender stereotypes, but given that some people really experience irrational levels of anxiety, given that not all of it can be effectively treated or cured by taking long contemplative walks or throwing off the unfair demands of their family or society, I imagine there are really people with mental illness for whom housework and personal hygiene are a struggle. Doctors really look at whether the person cares enough to shower or brush their hair or keep their house straight as an indication of how bad they’re doing, or whether treatment is effective. Not the only indicator, but a useful legit one.

Um… yeah. But did you read the text? This is aimed at a man whose woman is miserable, and somehow his counsel and support isn’t enough for her, so he’s going to drug her.

Did you notice who has no agency whatsoever, according to the ad text?
Right. So. If someone has an anxiety disorder, that person can and should totally seek out whatever treatment is effective. If someone’s relatives wish to be involved and helpful, all well and good. But treating someone without that person’s involvement or consent is usually both illegal and wrong.

I’m sure other ads sold the shit directly to the miserable women. Very sure. But this ad is really, really distressing. “Is your captive human unhappy? Drug your captive human!”

It’s not 100% clear from the context of the ad, but this is probably an ad from a psychiatric journal, trying to convince therapists to prescribe this drug for patients, not directed at husbands. That’s why it talks about “counsel” and “guidance” and uses medical jargon like “Indicated in anxiety, tension,” etc.

You might want to read lknope’s comment above to get some actual perspective.

Interesting that it’s men who don’t see this as a very terrible way for women to be treated, or that it’s somehow “Just not that bad!” because it’s most likely directed at therapists. Who were probably mostly male.

Have you ever gotten a call from someone you live with saying they need you to come home from work right away because they’re thinking of killing themselves? Have you ever debated with yourself how many more days you will be able to take off work for that reason, or how that person will cope without medication next month if you quit this job and don’t have health insurance? Is your “actual perspective” informed by personal knowledge of people with mental illness, or does this all break down into newer gender stereotypes as far as you’re concerned, where guys are reactionary and women have “actual perspective”?

I didn’t say there was no problem with this ad. I was trying to say that real mental illness sometimes gets overlooked or minimized in these discussions of sexist therapists and sexist drug ads. If I didn’t know any better, this analysis of psychiatry would make me think women have never had anxiety disorders. Maybe mental illness is a myth that men use to keep women down. It would be easy to slip down this slope into an anti-psychiatry mindset, and that’s not good for modern women either.

Like I said, I can see where it fits into 70s gender stereotypes. I haven’t read the Feminine Mystique, but I imagine there were women who were absurdly diagnosed or hospitalized for rebelling against their husbands, whatever. I’ve heard that African-American men were diagnosed as schizophrenic at rates much higher than Caucasians, which could be explained in terms of stresses that society dumped on them or in terms of doctors unfairly seeing rebellious activists as being dangerous or psychotic. I assume women were messed over in the same kinds of ways, their activism or their reactions to oppression unfairly seen as neurotic or psychotic.

A much higher percentage of middle class families could afford hired household help at the time of this ad — and did — than can do so now. And a higher percentage of moms are in the paid work force now.

This retro Mother’s Little Helpers ad jives with the basic tenets of guys like Santorum who think all women should stay home so they can home school the kids and support the husband. Remember when women were ostracized if they didn’t have kids, didn’t marry, preferred women to men, couldn’t vote even? Somehow I think Ricky dreams of a return to those days…

Retro? This is Oxazepam. One of the 50 most prescribed medications in my pharmacy. (Not even close to Ativan, however, which is a brand name of Lorazepam.) Oxazepam, Lorazepam… all the ‘pams are knockoffs of the original Diazepam, better known as Valium. That stuff’ll get you through your busy day all right. Whee!

Maybe you can help me. I’ve started watching Mad Men because people constantly tell me its great, people who should know. I’m about 5 episodes into season 1.

So far I’m clear on:

– Everyone used to drink and smoke, like all the fucking time in the 50’s, even if they were pregnant. Got it.

– Workplaces were unbelievably racist and sexist by modern standards. Got it.

– Advertisers were poised to start using psychology to manipulate people subconsciously, and so create the modern world as we know it. But within 10 minutes of episode 1 we’re going to make it clear that we won’t be exploring that fascinating, pivotal moment in western civilisation, at all. Wait, what?

Does this series every get into anything meaty, or is it a big soap with a charismatic lead and so much cigarette smoke I always feel a little nauseous after watching it?

It’s a big soap. The parts where they actually explore advertising are by far the best part of the show, and the reason I watch it. Unfortunately, they get really, really bogged down in the soap opera crap in seasons 3 and 4, if you make it that far.

But I can’t stop watching for those moments where they get back to advertising (and some of the other historical type stuff) because it’s so interesting.

It seems like they might be getting back on track for the next season, judging by how the story is progressing (the major story of seasons 3 and 4 seems to be wrapping up).

Before you see this and automatically assume it’s a nasty gender stereotype against women, you ought to at least play devil’s advocate for a minute and see what happens.
If they wanted to show someone stressed out, it had to be either a man or a woman. Just because it’s a woman experiencing stress from a job that more women than men have, does that necessarily make it sexist? If it had been a man in the ad, would that have been more acceptable? If so, why?
Or, if this was a photo of a man stressed out by his corporate job, would that raise alarm bells with you? Probably not. But, through the years I’ve heard how the job of a housewife is underappreciated, yet vitally important. (I concur). So if you feel that this ad is a slap at women, but that an ad showing a man with a stressful 9-5 (9-8?) job would have been fine, then you must therefore feel that the job of housewife is inherently not as important as a paying job.
What I’m saying is that it is incompatible to feel both that the job of housewife (or househusband, if you will) is just as important as a “real job,” yet that this ad is insulting to women in particular. I don’t see how you could believe both at the same time.
I used to have a high-pressure well-paying job, detested it, and felt every bit as trapped as the woman in this ad. And in many ways I very much envied stay-at-home parents.
All that being said, it does bother me that in most commercials and TV shows, men are portrayed as incompetent buffoons who frequently need to be rescued by women. I suspect this has happened not because it closely reflects reality, but rather because swapping the genders in these cases would seem overtly biased against women.
It is not sexist to merely present something that reflects reality, unless you’re also suggesting that these gender roles are preferred in some way.

True, although in a sense I had that covered by the second part of my sentence, which was, “unless you’re also suggesting that these gender roles are preferred in some way.” If the messages from the media are persistently biased toward some stereotype, that conveys that there’s really no other way for things to be.

What I’m trying to say is that there are many better examples of offensive ads than this one, which merely portrays the reality of a woman as a stressed housewife. This ad doesn’t say she’s not smart enough to get a paying job, or that she’s subordinate to her husband, or even that she needs help opening a jar.

Well, I call “how the hell would you know how I felt or what my situation was?”

Suffice it to say, I hated my work to the extent that as soon as finances permitted (hence the “being trapped” part), I quit the entire industry to stay home with my family and take care of my kids. But until I was able to do that, I was a wreck.

Good for you. Now imagine this ad shows a woman boarded in a conference room by a team of shoulder pad wielding feminists telling you that if you just take drugs it will be ok, and maybe you’ll get it a little. Because you *chose* what worked for you and changed it which is exactly what this ad is saying this woman can not do.

Also, you are saying you had a job a husband AND three kids? Do you think maybe you were stressed out because you had three full time jobs there? Your work life balance is yours, but it doesn’t excuse limiting other people’s options.

Well yea, isn’t that the point of psychiatric treatment, to make people feel more comfortable with their lives. If your life is doing housework, because you’re a woman and the year is 1965, and you have anxiety, because sometimes people get anxious, what’s wrong with getting high to cope? It’s like you all have never heard of cultural relativism before.

So it would be okay to just drug women in countries where they can’t drive or vote or step outside the house without being beaten? Would you apply your principle to 19th century ads offering products for keeping your slaves in line?

The two separate aspects to this ad are confusing the issue. One is the portrayal of a woman as a stressed-out housewife, and I see nothing offensive about that. The other is the prescribing of drugs for stress, which I also see little wrong with as long as it’s not the first and only solution considered, and as long as the woman makes the decision.

When combined, though, it’s easy for someone to extrapolate the scenario as something like: “let’s keep women in the kitchen and drug them to make it easier for them.” But that’s just reading into the ad way, way too much.

Women as second-class citizens, and slavery, are both highly offensive concepts. And your phrases “just drug women” and “keeping your slaves in line” are suggesting force-feeding drugs, which is also pretty offensive. So the analogies you offered are radically worse than anything stated or implied by the original ad.

The media and advertising do not live in a vacuum. They reflect society and they are based on what society reacts to. The media and advertising are not separate from society, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Since Mad Men has already been brought up, I’ll point out that in the first season, Betty (the wife) is embodying Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” perfectly and starts going to a therapist. The therapist calls the husband to discuss what she said during the therapy session and to determine ongoing treatment.

This was considered normal and ethical at the time.

You need to do some research into how women were treated by society, psychiatrists, and husbands at the time.

The idea of drugging women as a class to make them cope with an unbearable situation is disgusting.

However, if I were in that situation, as an individual, I’d probably appreciate the drugs. Anxiety and depression are terrible to live with, and what difference does it make if they’re situational if you can’t do anything to change the situation? Especially since, in my experience, anxiety and depression are likely to make a person feel less able/willing to try to change the situation.

Well, would you deny drugs to people who have to earn their wages in an undemocratic workplace? Would you deny drugs to queer folks who can’t adopt children or marry their partner?
Judging by the overall rise in using psyhcotropic prescriptions, there’s probably many more women today than there were then who take drugs to keep them happy while they do domestic work. The difference is that today we have different social expectations, and we think it’s unseemly to portray a woman as having a menial life.
I don’t disagree with you exactly. But I don’t think drugs should only be given to people whose level of freedom meets some acceptable threshold.

Medicalizing mental states tends to complicate that.
And then, even without a diagnosis, my belief in personal sovereignty gets shaken when a friend wants to hurt themself.
But, yes, I suppose my mistake was in assuming no one would be forcing hypothetical housewife to take psychotropics. It’s my own cultural bias! In the time I come from we would only ever do that to the dangerously insane and children.

Cultural relativism has its place. But it’s not to justify drugging people so they can tolerate intolerable circumstances. And we’re coming from within the same damn cultural tradition, so we know how gender norms and class oppression and psychiatry relate to each other in this tradition.

Yeah, and as a person who really does have problems with anxiety I think some times you do end up using these drugs and having them help. Yes, as a short term solution it does make sense. But frankly, when you say, you can’t free her and show a woman in a situation like this some one ought to be asking “Why the hell not?”

Yes, drugs can help with acute anxiety attacks. If palpitations are making you unable to attend meetings, unable to go to a grocery store without feeling fear, etc. I think what stands out to me about this ad is the split between goals in psychiatry. On one hand you want to help the person who is having trouble, but that is not how it often works. Often what is really happening is neutralizing the threat of a person who doesn’t act the way the people around them want them to, or the way society wants them to.

That’s not helping them at all of course, other than reducing the risk that they will be neutralized by less kind means.

This ad is irritating, and honestly it should be a little creepy to anyone who can cross associate with a female character too. Perhaps the implication was meant to show that she is trapped by the monotony of spending every day “cleaning up” her psychological mess, but it reads just as well as some one who is going to be sedated in order to deprive them of any chance of healing.

If it were just the image I would say it’s a pretty good photograph, actually. It’s the copy that makes it kind of nauseating.

Why do you insist on putting a man in a business suit and insinuating that it is any comparison. It’s not even worth answering because it’s such a bad strawman argument. But YES. I WOULD CALL THAT BAD!!!!!!11111!! I just wouldn’t call it sexist.

Because we all have jobs, but only some of us have jobs that are burdened with the taint of slavery. And guess what, white guy in a boardroom isn’t one of them. You want people to *pretend* that doesn’t exist while at the same time arguing that it is just historic? Let me tell you something, I think that housewives are a lot more than cleaning machines, and I don’t know a stay at home mother whose whole life even revolves around cleaning or involves being trapped (as opposed to social engagements, child rearing, her community at large) who isn’t actually in an abusive relationship, so I kind of find the whole frumpy-maid-housewife stereotype irritating in general.

The thing is that the copy talks about how boring her life is, and then sells drugs to her. What part of that is not clearly offensive? It would actually be a lot less offensive if it said “she can’t spend time with her own children anymore, she doesn’t care to change her clothes these days, her friends worry about her but can’t seem to help” or something at least signaling sincere sounding concern for the person as a person. But that is not what the copy says. First of all it pretty much denigrates the role of the housewife totally. I don’t see how you can be pro-housewife and not be offended by the “insurmountable” family stuff and the “confined to the home” bit either.

What the hell? That copy is just nasty. Why should any human be “confined” or have their work written off as “insurmountable” as an excuse to sell drugs to them and how is that *not* offensive?

Imagine if the advert read ‘you can’t set him free, but you can help him be less anxious’ and the image featured men doing housework – I susspect majority would say, ” you can set him free by doing it yourself’. “So if you feel that this ad is a slap at women, but that an ad showing a man with a stressful 9-5 (9-8?) job would have been fine, then you must therefore feel that the job of housewife is inherently not as important as a paying job.” – it is not what we feel ourselves as women, it is what men feel about us and the lack of their appreciation.

Housework and child-rearing should be paid jobs. It saves capitalism an estimated $40 trillion a year in unpaid labor for women to do all the work they do without compensation. Public day care and full employment ought to be the norm.

Funny how it is (more) acceptable to drug children to make them sit in crowded rooms against their will, force-fed information they are not interested in, while being evaluated and ordered around by people who represent the interests of the institution more than anything else.